It's really just ammunition for those who need it. Poor Fr. Boulet - he literally grabbed quotes from the 'Net, it seems, and cobbled them together. I wrote the refutation in 2006, and tried to call him in Canada to let him know and ask if he wanted a chance to refute it before I published it, but couldn't get an answer on the 'phone. Anyway, I've been gentle on him, so hopefully he won't mind too much. It was published in The Four Marks as an appendix to The Church Crucified.

_________________In Christ our King.

Thu May 24, 2012 1:07 pm

Cristian Jacobo

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pmPosts: 552Location: Argentina

Re: Book release: Concerning A SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism

John Lane wrote:

I don't think you need to read it, Cristian.

Quote:

It's really just ammunition for those who need it. Poor Fr. Boulet - he literally grabbed quotes from the 'Net, it seems, and cobbled them together.

I remember I read it some years ago. I didn´t like it. I think I still have my notes.

Quote:

I wrote the refutation in 2006, and tried to call him in Canada to let him know and ask if he wanted a chance to refute it before I published it, but couldn't get an answer on the 'phone. Anyway, I've been gentle on him, so hopefully he won't mind too much. It was published in The Four Marks as an appendix to The Church Crucified.

Since my understanding about the abrogation of earlier laws, and your assertion on page 10, seem to be incompatible, would you like to comment?

Thu May 24, 2012 9:19 pm

James Francis

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:27 pmPosts: 80

Re: Book release: Concerning A SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism

Dear John,

Could I please email you privately about this article?

Many thanks,James

Thu May 24, 2012 10:23 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Book release: Concerning A SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism

Senex wrote:

It has been my understanding that the 1917 Code of Canon Law did not have the effect of abrogating earlier laws when those laws were cited in the footnotes to the Code.

That archive.org text is an excellent find, Senex! Thank you. It's nice to be able to show people Cum ex apostolatus on the page with c. 188. My copy of the Code doesn't have the footnotes, and I've only ever seen one which did.

I could well be mistaken, but my reading of it is that all penal and disciplinary laws were abrogated by the Code (c. 6), unless they were explicitly or implicitly contained in the Code. I understand this to mean actually repeated in the Code, not mentioned in footnotes. The footnotes are the sources, not the Code itself. They tell us where things came from. The law is the text of the Code. See c. 6, 2 and 6, 3 for greater clarity about this. Canon 188,4 therefore enacts or maintains the main principle from Cum ex apostolatus, and that therefore remains part of the law of the Church (and it's divine law anyway, according to Bellarmine et al.). But the rest of Cum ex apostolatus is abrogated. Technically, I think it more correct to say, the bull Cum ex apostolatus is abrogated, but the Code enacts its central principle - i.e. that a public heretic cannot hold an office validly. The point about the footnotes is they aid interpretation. If there's any doubt about how to understand c. 188, we go to the texts it was based upon.

Make sense?

I discovered yesterday that in circa 2000, Fr. Innocent Marie of the Dominicans published an article asserting that Cum ex apostolatus was abrogated by the Code. I wish I could get a copy and see what he had to say. No doubt he threw the baby out with the bath water.

_________________In Christ our King.

Thu May 24, 2012 11:16 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Book release: Concerning A SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism

James Francis wrote:

Dear John,

Could I please email you privately about this article?

Many thanks,James

Go for it. I presume you have my address, which every member should have from the introductory process when joining.

Ken, I'll send you a Word version of it and you can just use the highlight function to point out what you think is confusing and I will correct it. Likewise typos! Let me know if you're prepared to have a go at it. I'd be very grateful.

Edit: Ken, it's a refutation, not a presentation of the sede thesis. But if you think there are "holes" in the sense that something Fr. Boulet said wasn't answered, please point those out also.

_________________In Christ our King.

Fri May 25, 2012 3:15 am

Senex

Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 10:54 pmPosts: 29

Re: Book release: Concerning A SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism

Mr Lane,

Thanks for your reply to my question.

To avoid derailing this thread, I have opened a fresh one in the Texts Forum, and I have there posted the link to the copy of the 1917 Code of Canon Law found at archive.org.

I have also put there some links to a couple of related resources that I have recently come across. These include Bachofen’s Commentary on the Code, in which, starting on page 60 of volume 1, he has an article that touches on the status of old laws vis-à-vis the Code. He says nothing specific about the status of the footnotes. Nevertheless, it seems fairly clear that, insofar as Cum ex Apostolatus is an expression of Divine Law, it is impossible for its substance to have been abrogated.

Fri May 25, 2012 11:13 am

TKGS

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 amPosts: 391Location: Indiana, USA

Re: Book release: Concerning A SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism

I was lent a copy of Fr. Boulet's book a couple of years ago so that I could understand "my errors" and "return to the Church". It was a very difficult read because he never refuted "sedevacantism". He refuted a whole lot of other things, but not the actual truth that the Chair of Peter is not currently occupied by a Catholic.

I returned the book and told its owner that I didn't need a refutation of the Dimond brothers. My friend, however, later began to see the absurdity of Fr. Boulet's arguments.

Ken, I'll send you a Word version of it and you can just use the highlight function to point out what you think is confusing and I will correct it. Likewise typos! Let me know if you're prepared to have a go at it. I'd be very grateful.

Edit: Ken, it's a refutation, not a presentation of the sede thesis. But if you think there are "holes" in the sense that something Fr. Boulet said wasn't answered, please point those out also.

Roger, wilco.

I'll start on it on Monday. Due to an ongoing illness, my RA has flared up. I am attempting to knock it down this weekend.

To avoid derailing this thread, I have opened a fresh one in the Texts Forum, and I have there posted the link to the copy of the 1917 Code of Canon Law found at archive.org.

I have also put there some links to a couple of related resources that I have recently come across. These include Bachofen’s Commentary on the Code, in which, starting on page 60 of volume 1, he has an article that touches on the status of old laws vis-à-vis the Code. He says nothing specific about the status of the footnotes. Nevertheless, it seems fairly clear that, insofar as Cum ex Apostolatus is an expression of Divine Law, it is impossible for its substance to have been abrogated.

In John's article, he makes the point, at least twice, that at least some of the provisions of Cum Ex Apostolatus were written into the Code, specifically in Canon 188, if I remember the details correctly. Would this not suffice?

I returned the book and told its owner that I didn't need a refutation of the Dimond brothers. My friend, however, later began to see the absurdity of Fr. Boulet's arguments.

I don't know that I would call his arguments "absurd" necessarily, but they are most certainly misdirected, confusing, and at times, just plain wrong. However, I only know what I know of Fr. Boulet's arguments from John's most recent paper. Even so, it is clear that they needed correcting.

_________________Kenneth G. Gordon

Fri May 25, 2012 4:13 pm

John Daly

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 amPosts: 176

Re: Book release: Concerning A SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism

To revert to the question of the Code footnotes, I think I should point out that they have no legal value whatever. The Code of Canon Law as promulgated by Pope Benedict XV in 1917 in fact contains no footnotes. Cardinal Gasparri, as head of the commission which drafted the Code, produced his invaluable 9 volume set of Fontes (Source documents) from which the 1917 laws are derived and compiled an equally invaluable set of footnote annotations showing which previous laws were drawn on in compiling the 1917 Code, all of them found in the Fontes. Certain editions of the Code contain the Gasparri footnotes but the footnotes are not part of the Code and it is expressly stated, at the beginning of all such editions, that the footnotes are Cardinal Gasparri's personal copyright, which would not be the case if they were officially part of the Code.Nor does the fact that any document is mentioned in a footnote as a source of the present law imply that the document in question is still in force, even partially.

To revert to the question of the Code footnotes, I think I should point out that they have no legal value whatever.

Excellent. I had wondered, but others who are more knowledgeable than I had brought it up. Thank you.

_________________Kenneth G. Gordon

Fri May 25, 2012 6:36 pm

TKGS

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 amPosts: 391Location: Indiana, USA

Re: Book release: Concerning A SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism

Ken Gordon wrote:

TKGS wrote:

I returned the book and told its owner that I didn't need a refutation of the Dimond brothers. My friend, however, later began to see the absurdity of Fr. Boulet's arguments.

I don't know that I would call his arguments "absurd" necessarily, but they are most certainly misdirected, confusing, and at times, just plain wrong. However, I only know what I know of Fr. Boulet's arguments from John's most recent paper. Even so, it is clear that they needed correcting.

The reason I called his arguments absurd is because they don't address the issue he claims to be addressing. That is all.

I returned the book and told its owner that I didn't need a refutation of the Dimond brothers. My friend, however, later began to see the absurdity of Fr. Boulet's arguments.

I don't know that I would call his arguments "absurd" necessarily, but they are most certainly misdirected, confusing, and at times, just plain wrong. However, I only know what I know of Fr. Boulet's arguments from John's most recent paper. Even so, it is clear that they needed correcting.

The reason I called his arguments absurd is because they don't address the issue he claims to be addressing. That is all.

John Lane posted - "That archive.org text is an excellent find, Senex! Thank you. It's nice to be able to show people Cum ex apostolatus on the page with c. 188. My copy of the Code doesn't have the footnotes, and I've only ever seen one which did."

Perhaps this will assist, and I do not pretend to understand Canon Law The text book in my library " Canon Law, text and commentary", Brouscarens & Ellis. provides this help;

Principles of Interpretation ([i]page 21[i][/i][/i]

1. Canons which re-enact the old law without change are in reality nothing more then the old law;and hence are subject to the same interpretation ( c.6,2).

2. Canons which agree in part with the old law carry into the Code the interpretations of that part of the old law which they re-enact. ( c. 6,3).

3.In doubt whether the law has been changed or not, the presumption is against the change;hence the old law with its interpretations my be relied on ( c.6,4)

Mon May 28, 2012 6:38 pm

Michael Wilson

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:53 amPosts: 63Location: St. Marys, Kansas

Re: Book release: Concerning A SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism

Dear John, I was reading your reply to Fr. Dominique Boulet's "A SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism."; and it is very good. I especially like the part which demonstrates that public heretics cannot be members of the Church.Thank you for taking the time to write this rebuttal.God Bless,Mike

_________________"The World Must Conform to Our Lord, and not He to it." Fr. Dennis Fahey C.S.S.P.

Sun Dec 23, 2012 8:57 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Book release: Concerning A SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism

Thanks Mike. You know, it was written in 2006 as a letter to Fr. Ortiz, who had said in a conference, in my presence, that it is unlawful to adopt the sedevacantist thesis. I challenged him on this afterwards, and he gave me Fr. Boulet's pamphlet to read, so I answered it.

What was most interesting was that he told another after he had received my letter, that I was trying to make him a sedevacantist. But that was not what I had in view at all. I was trying to achieve a much more limited objective, which was to extract from him the admission that his assertion that our view is illegitimate is insupportable. I wanted him to retract a positive assertion; he took the arguments to be attempts to convert him to our view. Well, it would have been good if I did convince him of our view, but that's beside the point. Evidently he felt threatened, which suggested to me that he found the arguments difficult to refute.

This is the same priest who has recently left the Fraternity and joined with Fr. Pfeiffer and Co.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sun Dec 23, 2012 11:42 pm

Geoff Tribbe

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pmPosts: 156Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Book release: Concerning A SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism

Well, well, it appears Mr. Matt has decided to give Fr. Boulet's arguments a repeat airing in the latest issues of his paper.

I would say it would be fair for him to publish a rebuttal, but being Sedevacantphobic, Matt would probably want to stick with just the one side.

Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:49 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Book release: Concerning A SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism

Interesting, Geoff. Well, it's a very good sign (for us) that Fr. Boulet's booklet is the best they have to offer! Oh my!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum